Darwin says men choose

blackitty

Incels.Net Novice
love said:
According to Darwin natural and sexual selection men choose the mate, not women. What happend?
I think you made a mistake in understanding what he said.

In Darwin's theory of natural selection, he said that females produce relatively few but larger and highly nutritious gametes whereas males produce a large number of smaller gametes. As a result, he proposed two mechanisms of sexual selection - one is intrasexual, that is, males compete against each other to access females, and the other is intersexual, where members of one sex (usually females) choose their sexual partners. Darwin had noted that females are usually picky choosers because they want the best genes. This is why males in most animal species have distinctive features to attract the females, as a sign of their genes being better than the other males.

What you are saying is what the critics believed at that time after Darwin published his findings. They were fine with the intrasexual thing but ridiculed the possibility that females get to choose their partners in nature. However, the critics were disproved and the validity of a female's role in natural selection was established around 80 years after his publication.

Thus, females ARE the ones who choose their partners. The males just try to attract them but the decision to mate depends on the female.
 

love

Femoid
blackitty said:
love said:
According to Darwin natural and sexual selection men choose the mate, not women. What happend?
I think you made a mistake in understanding what he said.

In Darwin's theory of natural selection, he said that females produce relatively few but larger and highly nutritious gametes whereas males produce a large number of smaller gametes. As a result, he proposed two mechanisms of sexual selection - one is intrasexual, that is, males compete against each other to access females, and the other is intersexual, where members of one sex (usually females) choose their sexual partners. Darwin had noted that females are usually picky choosers because they want the best genes. This is why males in most animal species have distinctive features to attract the females, as a sign of their genes being better than the other males.

What you are saying is what the critics believed at that time after Darwin published his findings. They were fine with the intrasexual thing but ridiculed the possibility that females get to choose their partners in nature. However, the critics were disproved and the validity of a female's role in natural selection was established around 80 years after his publication.

Thus, females ARE the ones who choose their partners. The males just try to attract them but the decision to mate depends on the female.
Darwin shyed away from females being the mating chooser. Its actually feminist theorist that have said women are the choosers.
 

love

Femoid
He ignored alot of data regarding women. The did however prove that men value looks and appearance more than females. Females value status and wealth as more important. Which is why rich men can get beautiful women.

I think back then he was right, men did more choosing because women couldnt work and had to marry whoever offered to survive. Women did not have the free will to choose a mate. Things are different now, women work and can have more freedom of choice because they can provide for themselves.
 

blackitty

Incels.Net Novice
love said:
blackitty said:
love said:
According to Darwin natural and sexual selection men choose the mate, not women. What happend?
I think you made a mistake in understanding what he said.

In Darwin's theory of natural selection, he said that females produce relatively few but larger and highly nutritious gametes whereas males produce a large number of smaller gametes. As a result, he proposed two mechanisms of sexual selection - one is intrasexual, that is, males compete against each other to access females, and the other is intersexual, where members of one sex (usually females) choose their sexual partners. Darwin had noted that females are usually picky choosers because they want the best genes. This is why males in most animal species have distinctive features to attract the females, as a sign of their genes being better than the other males.

What you are saying is what the critics believed at that time after Darwin published his findings. They were fine with the intrasexual thing but ridiculed the possibility that females get to choose their partners in nature. However, the critics were disproved and the validity of a female's role in natural selection was established around 80 years after his publication.

Thus, females ARE the ones who choose their partners. The males just try to attract them but the decision to mate depends on the female.
Darwin shyed away from females being the mating chooser. Its actually feminiѕt theorist that have said women are the choosers.
Can you provide some sources where you got this information from? Because everywhere I read that Darwin himself said that females are the choosers. Of course, there are exceptions. In some species, males are the choosers and in some species, the choice is mutual. However, in most cases, females are the choosers and it is the same in humans too.
 

blackitty

Incels.Net Novice
love said:
He ignored alot of data regarding women. The did however prove that men value looks and appearance more than females. Females value status and wealth as more important. Which is why rich men can get beautiful women.

I think back then he was right, men did more choosing because women couldnt work and had to marry whoever offered to survive. Women did not have the free will to choose a mate. Things are different now, women work and can have more freedom of choice because they can provide for themselves.
I don't think so. Even back in the day, females were the choosers, however, that choice was only for the rich. The poor, be it men or women, didn't have much of a choice. It is natural that women are the choosers because they bear the children. But a lot of women didn't get to choose because of societal issues, biologically they would've chosen if they were given the freedom.

But you are right that women value wealth and status more and men value appearance more, but it can be said only because the nature of our habitat has changed. It was not the case with primitive humans. Females always valued muscular, tall and well-built men because that ensured her safety and their children would inherit good genes. A muscular man can hunt and fight better. Today, we don't need to hunt or live in the wild, so the value of appearance has dropped for women. Now, money is what ensures a woman's safety and well-being so they value it more. Women still value looks, but not more than wealth and status. Men, on the other hand, have not changed and they still value looks. Just like a man's physical features, women's physical features also is an indication of the genes she carries. Rounded hips and chest and soft facial features are a symbol of fertility, thus, men are biologically programmed to value these traits.
 

blackitty

Incels.Net Novice
blackitty said:
love said:
He ignored alot of data regarding women. The did however prove that men value looks and appearance more than females. Females value status and wealth as more important. Which is why rich men can get beautiful women.

I think back then he was right, men did more choosing because women couldnt work and had to marry whoever offered to survive. Women did not have the free will to choose a mate. Things are different now, women work and can have more freedom of choice because they can provide for themselves.
I don't think so. Even back in the day, females were the choosers, however, that choice was only for the rich. The poor, be it men or women, didn't have much of a choice. It is natural that women are the choosers because they bear the children. But a lot of women didn't get to choose because of societal issues, biologically they would've chosen if they were given the freedom.

But you are right that women value wealth and status more and men value appearance more, but it can be said only because the nature of our habitat has changed. It was not the case with primitive humans. Females always valued muscular, tall and well-built men because that ensured her safety and their children would inherit good genes. A muscular man can hunt and fight better. Today, we don't need to hunt or live in the wild, so the value of appearance has dropped for women. Now, money is what ensures a woman's safety and well-being so they value it more. Women still value looks, but not more than wealth and status. Men, on the other hand, have not changed and they still value looks. Just like a man's physical features, women's physical features also is an indication of the genes she carries. Rounded hips and chest and soft facial features are a symbol of fertility, thus, men are biologically programmed to value these traits.
 

love

Femoid
blackitty said:
love said:
blackitty said:
I think you made a mistake in understanding what he said.

In Darwin's theory of natural selection, he said that females produce relatively few but larger and highly nutritious gametes whereas males produce a large number of smaller gametes. As a result, he proposed two mechanisms of sexual selection - one is intrasexual, that is, males compete against each other to access females, and the other is intersexual, where members of one sex (usually females) choose their sexual partners. Darwin had noted that females are usually picky choosers because they want the best genes. This is why males in most animal species have distinctive features to attract the females, as a sign of their genes being better than the other males.

What you are saying is what the critics believed at that time after Darwin published his findings. They were fine with the intrasexual thing but ridiculed the possibility that females get to choose their partners in nature. However, the critics were disproved and the validity of a female's role in natural selection was established around 80 years after his publication.

Thus, females ARE the ones who choose their partners. The males just try to attract them but the decision to mate depends on the female.
Darwin shyed away from females being the mating chooser. Its actually feminiѕt theorist that have said women are the choosers.
Can you provide some sources where you got this information from? Because everywhere I read that Darwin himself said that females are the choosers. Of course, there are exceptions. In some species, males are the choosers and in some species, the choice is mutual. However, in most cases, females are the choosers and it is the same in humans too.
In most animals females are the choosers but Darwin stated that females wear makeup, cover up flaws and are the beautiful sex to attract a mate. Like in animals its the male that is the prettier and the female is usually ugly in humans this is the oposite its the females that are prettier and thus Darwin believed that it was men that picked the mate because females wore make up to look better to attract a mate. He ignored feminist theories that it was females who were actually a more powerful sex, he did not want to admit that. He stated that if females got equality that the home, childcare and education would suffer because women wouldnt be looking after a home anymore.

He did not understand female beauty he made reference to it and stated that men had an allure and desire to be with beautiful women which is why men chose beautiful women. It was feminist theorists that stated there was an allure to beautiful women but that women were the ones choosing and not men because men are preoccupied with sex and beauty and females look for qualities of status and wealth which men dont care about.

He did believe that female animals were the choosers but thought it was reversed in humans due to women wearing make up and "decorating themselves with ordainments"
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
In animal societies, the alpha male hordes all the girls and keeps the other males down. That is why I am not a capitalist. The alpha male lion forces all the other lions to be gayfags in exile. True freedom results in gynophillic societies, in america (trump is alpha male lion) it is illegal to have a hooker so everyone is turning gay.

I am a first wave feminist, but I don't support 4th wave. I think the idea of a matriachal society where incels get laid is a utopia. I don't support 4th wave feminism because they hate males. The feminism I support is feminism that loves males and wants to give easy sex to all males.

That being said, overpopulation is a problem so some males would need sterilized. They could fuck to their hearts content, sterile as can be. I think numales being sterile is a blessing, I think for the best. Soyboys, of anime legend, ought not to be sterile though, in order to save Japan. The guy who made Mario is a soyboy, and absolutely needs to reproduce.

Normans will accuse me of being a communist, I am not a communist, nor am I a nazi, I simply recognized the japan is glorious and needs to make it to the 23rd century.

Not a nazi, but allow me to clarify this. The gay makes everything 33.7% less cool. The lesbian makes everything 73.3% cooler. Lesbians being awesome means that it is overstimulation, too much awesome, energy overload. Ideal utopia would be, mostly heterosex. Little bit of lesbians here and there to give it spice. But the simple fact is, we need gynophillia or else there is no utopia. A land where everyone is forced to be gay is dystopia. Not a nazi but I do believe there ought to be some kind of (nonviolent) attempt, to reduce the amount of souls being born as ugly babies. Ideal utopia noone has to suffer a life as an ugly person. People who don't care about nature, or the environment, or animals, or other souls, ought to be (peaceably, nonviolently, gently) sterilized as well, along with corrupt politicians and such. Cool rich people, such as bill gates and elon musk, shall be allowed to breed many families.
 

love

Femoid
lordoftheincels said:
In animal societies, the alpha male hordes all the girls and keeps the other males down. That is why I am not a capitalist. The alpha male lion forces all the other lions to be gayfags in exile. True freedom results in gynophillic societies, in america (trump is alpha male lion) it is illegal to have a hooker so everyone is turning gay.

I am a first wave feminiѕt, but I don't support 4th wave. I think the idea of a matriachal society where incels get laid is a utopia. I don't support 4th wave feminism because they hate males. The feminism I support is feminism that loves males and wants to give easy sex to all males.

That being said, overpopulation is a problem so some males would need sterilized. They could fuck to their hearts content, sterile as can be. I think numales being sterile is a blessing, I think for the best. Soyboys, of anime legend, ought not to be sterile though, in order to save Japan. The guy who made Mario is a soyboy, and absolutely needs to reproduce.

Normans will accuse me of being a communist, I am not a communist, nor am I a nazi, I simply recognized the japan is glorious and needs to make it to the 23rd century.

Not a nazi, but allow me to clarify this. The gay makes everything 50% less awesome. The lesbian makes everything 200% awesome. Lesbians being awesome means that it is overstimulation, too much awesome, energy overload. Ideal utopia would be, mostly heterosex. Little bit of lesbians here and there to give it spice. But the simple fact is, we need gynophillia or else there is no utopia. A land where everyone is forced to be gay is dystopia. Not a nazi but I do believe there ought to be some kind of (nonviolent) attempt, to reduce the amount of souls being born as ugly babies. Ideal utopia noone has to suffer a life as an ugly person. People who don't care about nature, or the environment, or animals, or other souls, ought to be (peaceably, nonviolently, gently) sterilized as well.
So you just want easy sex?
 

TheUnworthy

Incels.Net Regular
love said:
lordoftheincels said:
In animal societies, the alpha male hordes all the girls and keeps the other males down. That is why I am not a capitalist. The alpha male lion forces all the other lions to be gayfags in exile. True freedom results in gynophillic societies, in america (trump is alpha male lion) it is illegal to have a hooker so everyone is turning gay.

I am a first wave feminiѕt, but I don't support 4th wave. I think the idea of a matriachal society where incels get laid is a utopia. I don't support 4th wave feminism because they hate males. The feminism I support is feminism that loves males and wants to give easy sex to all males.

That being said, overpopulation is a problem so some males would need sterilized. They could fuck to their hearts content, sterile as can be. I think numales being sterile is a blessing, I think for the best. Soyboys, of anime legend, ought not to be sterile though, in order to save Japan. The guy who made Mario is a soyboy, and absolutely needs to reproduce.

Normans will accuse me of being a communist, I am not a communist, nor am I a nazi, I simply recognized the japan is glorious and needs to make it to the 23rd century.

Not a nazi, but allow me to clarify this. The gay makes everything 50% less awesome. The lesbian makes everything 200% awesome. Lesbians being awesome means that it is overstimulation, too much awesome, energy overload. Ideal utopia would be, mostly heterosex. Little bit of lesbians here and there to give it spice. But the simple fact is, we need gynophillia or else there is no utopia. A land where everyone is forced to be gay is dystopia. Not a nazi but I do believe there ought to be some kind of (nonviolent) attempt, to reduce the amount of souls being born as ugly babies. Ideal utopia noone has to suffer a life as an ugly person. People who don't care about nature, or the environment, or animals, or other souls, ought to be (peaceably, nonviolently, gently) sterilized as well.
So you just want easy sex?
1. Chads and women in general can have sex easily
2. That's a big reach right there, he didn't say that at all.
He explain many things in that paragraph, he don't say anything related to "having easy sex"
 

love

Femoid
TheUnworthy said:
love said:
lordoftheincels said:
In animal societies, the alpha male hordes all the girls and keeps the other males down. That is why I am not a capitalist. The alpha male lion forces all the other lions to be gayfags in exile. True freedom results in gynophillic societies, in america (trump is alpha male lion) it is illegal to have a hooker so everyone is turning gay.

I am a first wave feminiѕt, but I don't support 4th wave. I think the idea of a matriachal society where incels get laid is a utopia. I don't support 4th wave feminism because they hate males. The feminism I support is feminism that loves males and wants to give easy sex to all males.

That being said, overpopulation is a problem so some males would need sterilized. They could fuck to their hearts content, sterile as can be. I think numales being sterile is a blessing, I think for the best. Soyboys, of anime legend, ought not to be sterile though, in order to save Japan. The guy who made Mario is a soyboy, and absolutely needs to reproduce.

Normans will accuse me of being a communist, I am not a communist, nor am I a nazi, I simply recognized the japan is glorious and needs to make it to the 23rd century.

Not a nazi, but allow me to clarify this. The gay makes everything 50% less awesome. The lesbian makes everything 200% awesome. Lesbians being awesome means that it is overstimulation, too much awesome, energy overload. Ideal utopia would be, mostly heterosex. Little bit of lesbians here and there to give it spice. But the simple fact is, we need gynophillia or else there is no utopia. A land where everyone is forced to be gay is dystopia. Not a nazi but I do believe there ought to be some kind of (nonviolent) attempt, to reduce the amount of souls being born as ugly babies. Ideal utopia noone has to suffer a life as an ugly person. People who don't care about nature, or the environment, or animals, or other souls, ought to be (peaceably, nonviolently, gently) sterilized as well.
So you just want easy sex?
1. Chads and women in general can have sex easily
2. That's a big reach right there, he didn't say that at all.
He explain many things in that paragraph, he don't say anything related to "having easy sex"
Read the last sentence in the second paragraph
 

TheUnworthy

Incels.Net Regular
love said:
TheUnworthy said:
love said:
So you just want easy sex?
1. Chads and women in general can have sex easily
2. That's a big reach right there, he didn't say that at all.
He explain many things in that paragraph, he don't say anything related to "having easy sex"
Read the last sentence in the second paragraph
That doesn't mean he just want easy sex. I admit my mistake there.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
blackitty said:
love said:
According to Darwin natural and sexual selection men choose the mate, not women. What happend?
I think you made a mistake in understanding what he said.

In Darwin's theory of natural selection, he said that females produce relatively few but larger and highly nutritious gametes whereas males produce a large number of smaller gametes. As a result, he proposed two mechanisms of sexual selection - one is intrasexual, that is, males compete against each other to access females, and the other is intersexual, where members of one sex (usually females) choose their sexual partners. Darwin had noted that females are usually picky choosers because they want the best genes. This is why males in most animal species have distinctive features to attract the females, as a sign of their genes being better than the other males.

What you are saying is what the critics believed at that time after Darwin published his findings. They were fine with the intrasexual thing but ridiculed the possibility that females get to choose their partners in nature. However, the critics were disproved and the validity of a female's role in natural selection was established around 80 years after his publication.

Thus, females ARE the ones who choose their partners. The males just try to attract them but the decision to mate depends on the female.
Truth and based.

Males are like the galactic janitors of the galaxy. They are born to be kramer.

males are expendable, get no love, and are kept down and oppressed by both males and women.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
Males fantasize about sex 20 times a day. Not based if you think a utopia is where males have to struggle to get sex.
Fallacy if you believe easy sex is the only ingredient of a utopia.
 

love

Femoid
TheUnworthy said:
love said:
TheUnworthy said:
1. Chads and women in general can have sex easily
2. That's a big reach right there, he didn't say that at all.
He explain many things in that paragraph, he don't say anything related to "having easy sex"
Read the last sentence in the second paragraph
That doesn't mean he just want easy sex. I admit my mistake there.
That’s the only thing I understood from that conversation. I don’t know why every conversation has to do with the nazi
 

love

Femoid
lordoftheincels said:
Males fantasize about sex 20 times a day. Not based if you think a utopia is where males have to struggle to get sex.
Fallacy if you believe easy sex is the only ingredient of a utopia.
If it were easy you wouldn’t enjoy it as much.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
love said:
lordoftheincels said:
Males fantasize about sex 20 times a day. Not based if you think a utopia is where males have to struggle to get sex.
Fallacy if you believe easy sex is the only ingredient of a utopia.
If it were easy you wouldn’t enjoy it as much.
No I'd enjoy it far more. Being years of incel has really weakened my sex drive.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
love said:
TheUnworthy said:
love said:
Read the last sentence in the second paragraph
That doesn't mean he just want easy sex. I admit my mistake there.
That’s the only thing I understood from that conversation. I don’t know why every conversation has to do with the nazi
Your focus. 98% of what I said wasn't about sex. And 98% of my conversations arent about nazis.

When I mention nazis its to clarify that Im not a nazi. Because normans automatically call me a nazi everytime I mention I think eugenics is good, or if I mention Jews control everything I get called a Nazi.

And excuse me for having to remind the world that jews control everything, its my attempt to get people to evolve out of bluepill and see the real reality for once. After many years of rigged politics it gets tiring to be blue pill all the time and not speak truths.
 
Top